After all, women’s agony in childbirth is natural, so why should we waste our health dollars ameliorating it?After all, think of how much we could improve healthcare financing simply by forcing women to give birth at home and letting them scream their throats raw.After all, they’re just women; presumably they’ll get over it.You know what they say: women forget the pain of labor once they see the baby.Her book, Push Back: Guilt in the Age of Natural Parenting (Harper Collins) is available 4/5/16. Neel Shah’s piece in The New England Journal of Medicine musing on the desirability of homebirth. Shah piously presents his musing as a way to save women from overtreatment from C-sections, which he derides as like an airbag exploding in a woman’s face. Shah views the promotion of homebirth as a way to save money. Shah never mentioned (and seemed to be unaware) of the multiple studies and datasets that show that US homebirth has a death rate up to 800% higher than comparable risk hospital birth. Meg Nagle, the self proclaimed Milk Meg, doesn’t “give a shit” that you feel judged, but she thinks it’s a very big deal when she is judged for her nastiness.In the wake of my blog post about lactivists’ cruelty and crushing lack of self-esteem, she removed her rant explaining why she couldn’t care less if she hurts your feelings. There is one reason for doing this and one reason only.
Chatty :) is a very nice script that lets you create a simple but very-good looking chat in a few minutes.Designed by the wedding book whizzes at Illustries, Guest Who?is guest book with real personality, a fun ice-breaker and makes the perfect light-hearted gift too."Launching Thursday 11th May 2017, Guest Who is a fun new take on the traditional wedding guest book that will get wedding guests warmed up while the newlyweds discover just how well they really know their friends. – a good-looking soft bound book packed with fun illustrations and prompts - guests leave their message with a clue to their identity, ready for the happy couple to guess the guest behind the good wishes.It’s easy for guests to play; they just pick a page, write their message with a clue, then add their name to the back of the book.Notice that although she removed the post, she never apologized for its content.She never asked how she might craft her message of “support” without demonizing women who formula feed. The crushing lack of self-esteem that impels lactivists to pretend that breastfeeding is some sort of achievement, to grossly exaggerated the benefits of breastfeeding, and to ignore the risks and harms was hardly satisfied by choosing to back down publicly from her obnoxious effort to hurt and shame women who formula feed.I do this work because I love helping women reach their own individual breastfeeding goals. Unfortunately this blog post has prompted someone to take the focus off of that and turned it into something completely different.I’m here for the women who are looking for information and support and will continue to do so. So Meg recognized at the very least that her rant was unflattering.A physician writing on Twitter and my Facebook page is puzzled by my stance on breastfeeding. Then he tried the shill gambit: It’s very revealing that he thinks I have to have an “angle” beyond conveying what the scientific evidence actually shows and expressing my firm conviction that reducing mothering to breasts, uteri and vaginas is scientifically suspect, deeply anti-feminist and gleefully vicious.The benefits of breastfeeding for term babies in first world countries are real, but they are trivial.